Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!TWG.COM!lefty From: lefty@TWG.COM Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk Subject: Re: MacNFS vs AppleShare Message-ID: Date: 12 Nov 90 20:11:57 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 53 mcsun!cernvax!chx400!urz.unibas.ch!doelz@uunet.uu.net writes: Message-ID: <9011121028.aa13928@Mercury.TWG.COM> >HOST ----converter----- Mac >Apple >Share > >This would be CAP, PACER, ALISA, LANWORKS, HELIOS, etc. >The drawback is that the host is bothered quite a bit. Further, the >mac-like storage of resource and data forks makes it necessary to >either split the files or to convert them somehow on the fly. Both >is computationally expensive. Ah, but the splitting of resource and data forks is necessary on _any_ non-Mac server, no matter how you're getting to it. The Mac's file structure is totally unique. Besides, using a format like AppleDouble is particularly "expensive". There's really no conversion involved: each fork of the file is treated as a stream of bytes. The disadvantage of this approach, as you say, is that the necessity of doing the bulk of the work on the host consumes relatively expensive resources. A further disadvantage is that AppleShare is available for a pretty limited set of host implementations. NFS is much more widely implemented. >HOST ----converter---- Mac > NFS, or (cryptic) DECnet > >The poor Mac has lots of things to do and will be not really useful any longer. I'd have to strongly disagree with this. Our Mac-based NFS client's throughput is quite good, even on machines like an SE or a Plus. NFS is a fairly straightforward protocol. While there _is_ some overhead involved in constructing the appropriate lies to tell the Macintosh file manager, what you're saying here is a gross overstatement. >HOST ----smart converter---- Mac >NFS Gator Box AppleShare > >The cheapest solution because a smart converter can serve a lot of >macs and hosts, (and it even works with VMS/UCX/NFS). Not really true at all. The break-even point of this approach versus a Mac-based client is at about 10-15 Macs. At this stage, your poor "smart converter" is going to find ityself getting just a tad overloaded. Performance suffers accordingly. By putting the client software onto the Mac itself, the bottleneck imposed by the intermediary converter is avoided. -- David N. Schlesinger (lefty@twg.com) Sr. Software Engineer The Wollongong Group 415/962-7100